Recently a buddy of mine suggested that I read Michael Crichton's novel "State of Fear"(2004) as a way I could understand the issue of global warming. I haven't yet, but I don't think this novel will replace science at least not in my mind. And it simply can't replace observation of the natural world, especially here in Alaska.
He suggested that Crichton had provided scientific proofs to his contentions that the earth is actually cooling, and he had checked out Crichton's facts. I suspect Crichton used some data from the 70's that actually brought concerns about cooling even a possible ice age. At the time this was the best science available and also was supported by atmospheric chemistry. The concentration of sulfates and nitrates in the atmosphere had risen expontentially since the 30's causing what is referred to as a "forcing" of climate change. That coupled with nuclear testing, volcanism, "dimming" and other natural factors led to the trends noted at the time. This might have led to what science (at the time) predicted; reentry into an ice-age in less than 5000 years. Except for two mitigating factors or at least what science now thinks mitigated the situation, it might have been the case. The first being a tremendous increase in CO2 and CH4, greenhouse gases, and the second, an incredible decrease in sulfates, especially those produced by coal and diesel burning. Surprisingly, if we wished to return to the sulphuric acid fogs over London and the brown air of Los Angeles we might reverse the warming issue!
Crichton may also have used, and my buddy may also have seen certain "government" testimony refuting Dr. Hanson, the first voice to raise questions about global warming. The "government" manipulated Hanson's testimony and even his presentation of models to make him appear a "crack-pot". Luckily, his work had been published and peer reviewed, and, though the government lies are still on the books the real Hanson work has stood the test of time and is surprisingly accurate 20 years later.
But the issue is Crichton's work of fiction, or, Gore's dramatizations are just that, money making ventures into entertainment. The fact is global warming is a trend that can be measured and plotted. It does not discount local trends like cooling in certain areas. Interpretation of the facts is still wide open, like it was in the 70's. And like the 70's, and the fact of global cooling, attention to science may allow an interpretation that provides us a world that still has ice and snow.
ps: I figured on such an old book there had to be a lot of comment. This site run http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74 by laboratory climate scientists shows the fiction in Crichton's "facts" point by point. They do it lot better than me, after all, I haven't read the book.
